[Footnote 211: The celebration of the feriae Latinae on Mons Albanus in 91 B.C., was to have been the scene of the spectacular beginning of the revolt against Rome, for the plan was to kill the two Roman consuls Iulius Caesar and Marcius Philippus at that time. The presence of the Roman consuls and the attendance of the members of the old Latin league is proof of the outward continuance of the old foedus (Florus, II, 6 (III, 18)).] [Footnote 212: The lex Plautia-Papiria is the same as the law mentioned by Cicero, pro Archia, IV, 7, under the names of Silvanus and Carbo. The tribunes who proposed the law were C. Papirius Carbo and M. Plautius Silvanus. See Mommsen, Hermes 16 (1881), p. 30, n. 2. Also a good note in Long, Ciceronis Orationes, III, p. 215.] [Footnote 213: Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 65: [Greek: exedramen es tas agchou poleis, tas ou pro pollou politidas Romaion menomenas, Tiburton te kai Praineston, kai osai mechri Nolaes. erethizon apantas es apostasin, kai chraemata es ton polemon sullegon.] See Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289. It is worth noting that there is no thought of saying anything about Praaneste and Tibur, except to call them cities ([Greek: poleis]). Had they been made municipia, after so many years of alliance as foederati, it seems likely that such a noteworthy change would have been specified. Note also that for 88 B.C. Appian (Bell. Civ., I, 53) says: [Greek: eos Italia pasa prosechomaesei es taen Romaion politeian, choris ge Leukanon kai Sauniton tote.]] [Footnote 214: Mommsen, Zum Roemischen Bodenrecht, Hermes 27 (1892), pp. 109 ff.] [Footnote 215: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 34.] [Footnote 216: Paulus, p. 159 (de Ponor): tertio, quum id genus hominum definitur, qui ad civitatem Romanam ita venerunt, ut municipes essent suae cuiusque civitatis et coloniae, ut Tiburtes, Praenestini, etc.] [Footnote 217: It is not strange perhaps, that there are no inscriptions which can be proved to date between 89 and 82 B.C., but inscriptions are numerous from the time of the empire, and although Tiberius granted Praeneste the favor she asked, that of being a municipium, still no praefectus is found, not even a survival of the title. The PRA ... in C.I.L., XIV, 2897, is praeco, not praefectus, as I shall show soon in the publication of corrections of Praeneste inscriptions, along with some new ones. For the government of a municipium, see Bull. dell'Inst., 1896, p. 7 ff.; Revue Arch., XXIX (1896), p. 398.] [Footnote 218: Mommsen, Hermes, 27 (1892), p. 109.] [Footnote 219: Marquardt, Staatsverw., I, p. 47 and note 3.] [Footnote 220: Val. Max. IX, 2, 1; Plutarch, Sulla, 32; Appian, Bell. Civ., I, 94; Lucan II, 194; Plutarch, praec. ger. reip., ch. 19 (p. 816); Augustinus, de civ. Dei, III, 28; Dessau, C.I.L., XIV, p. 289, n. 2.] [Footnote 221: One third of the land was the usual amount taken.]